Jump to content
 
  • entries
    261
  • comments
    1,413
  • views
    143,478

Dapol pannier - from zero to hero?


Barry Ten

1,119 views

The first loco bought with the intention of an eventual South Wales-themed layout in N was the then-new Dapol 57XX pannier. At the time I could only test it easily under DCC, so I put in a small decoder and tried it on the American layout. It was rubbish. but I (naively) assumed it would  improve with some running-in and so on. Not a chance! After I got it out of its box again for Paynestown, I was reminded how hopeless it had been to begin with. It would only do very jerky starts, couldn't run at slow speed, and was prone to stalling at any excuse, seemingly often at random on otherwise plain ttrack. Absolutely no good at all for the kind of work required on a BLT although it might just have been acceptable on a roundy-roundy.

 

No amount of tweaking or running-in made much diference, so I investigated further by dismantling the thing. I found that the root of the problem was with the motor itself, which needed quite a large kick voltage to start turning, even when not under any load. You could hear it humming as it tried to move. I don't know if this was just a bad motor, or whether Dapol skimped on the motors generally, but it's not a characteristic I've run into with any of the small can motors I've encountered, all of which which start turning silently almost as soon as voltage is applied.

 

Seeking a solution, I found that Tramfabriek do a range of drop-in coreless motors for Dapol engines. While the 57XX wasn't one of them, I took a punt that the one for the Terrier might work in a pinch. It wasn't too expensive, and I reasoned that if it couldn't be made to work at all, I'd still have a nice motor to put in a Terrier! The main issue was going to be the compatibility of the shaft diameters, and whether the Tramfabriek worm gear would play nicely with the existing gears, or would need swapping for the original one.

 

P1140434.JPG.345d071efb8abf882e1b338ae0f0a4db.JPG

 

With the body off, I fashioned a motor-mount from a  piece of Evergreen I-section plastic and tacked it and the motor in place with dabs of cyano, just as an first go. It seemed to work quite nicely - certainly a vast improvement on what had been there before. I can't vouch for it being mechanically "correct" but as a bodge, it works for me - although I'll stress that the kit is not meant for the Pannier.

 

With the original mechanism, the motor is lodged up in the pannier body. Removing it frees up a lot of space which can now be profitably filled with lead, adding to the all-up weight of the loco.

 

P1140436.JPG.f6d9e4b0380edf21a7948009b976f5d5.JPG

 

I still wasn't 100% happy, so I took a leaf from a thread I found on Rmweb about improving a 2mm conversion of the pannier, by adding wiper pickups. I made mine from the thinnest brass I had, then added blobs of solder to make the contact point. They then need careful adjustment to make sure they're scraping the rails, but at the same time not lifting the loco.

 

 

P1140435.JPG.847796987f169b64c06f16dd08ae90e6.JPG

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/64660-Dapol-pannier-a-haynes-manual/

 

Mine aren't very neat (a first go) but it's surprising how well they're hidden once the loco is reassembled:

 

P1140433.JPG.0072538a8a797cd89d6bafd761fd2444.JPG

 

They just tuck in between the wheels and behind the brake rods, and they're not even painted yet. If I can source some thinner brass, I'll make a second attempt but they work for now.

 

Here's a short clip showing the loco in action:

 

 

It still needs to be "driven" but previously it couldn't complete any sort of manoevre without at least a stall, so this is a great step in the right direction.

 

Incidentally, aside from the motor issues, I think the other possible flaw is that the chassis is too rigid. The Bachmann and Sonic locos all have a tiny amount of play in the axles, equating to a crude kind of compensation. With the Dapol one, it's so rigid that there's often going to be just one wheel in contact with the rails on one side, which then only needs to hit a tiny bit of dirt to stall.

 

Dapol seem to be revisiting their earlier N locos so perhaps the 57XX will get a better mechanism in due course. The body is exquisite, so it's certainly one well worth upgrading.

 

 

Edited by Barry Ten

  • Like 11
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

Interesting comments which do perhaps go some way to explaining why we don't seem to see many small terminus/fiddle yard in N. Mind you you may have a posse after you for saying it, as I've found that any suggestion that there might weaknesses or limitations to the scale is unacceptable in a number of quarters, even though anty scale has its inherent limitations and practical issues.

 

A common reaction to these kind of issues seems to be that you shouldn't want to shunt in N : "it's not what N is for". My own feeling is that such a situation IS a significant limitation in a scale , and saying it's bad form to raise the issue only means that nothing is done about models like this 

 

That fixes are possible is worth documenting .

 

My own two diesel 0-6-0 shunters run a LOT better than you have described, but they are still not as good as we've come to expect in 4mm

 

I get the impression that the limitations of Poole-era Farish may be casting a very long shadow , by having permanently depressed expectations for N gauge running

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

I get the impression that the limitations of Poole-era Farish may be casting a very long shadow , by having permanently depressed expectations for N gauge running

 

Having messed around with American N for getting on for 20 years, I know shunting is more than viaible. but that may be a legacy of generally better mechanisms having been the norm plus somewhat larger locos (helpfully generally always with tenders) to squeeze them into.

Edited by Barry Ten
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment

Although I model in 2FS rather than N gauge, I can shunt quite happily with my 2-4-0, 0-4-2 and 0-6-0 tank engines!  They are also DC rather than DCC.  Pick up from all wheels and as much weight as possible over the drivers all helps.

Ian

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

I've seen lots of good slow running and shunting in 2mm - including Modbury  - although whether that's because 2mm just works more reliably from the outset, or the 2mm bods are prepared to go the extra mile to get what they need, I don't know. Perhaps a bit of both.

 

Thinking back to other BLT layouts I've seen in N, at least as defined by the track standards, John Birkett-Smith's Ashburton would certainly qualify.

Edited by Barry Ten
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Interesting and informative post and discussion. I am one of those who have been wondering what a GWR shunting (micro) layout in N would be like, but feel uncertain whether the quality of running would be satisfying. I am too involved in 4mm to go 2FS, so will leave that to masters like Ian. But a nice little N micro on this IKEA cutting board might be fun. So this is good info for further contemplation, thanks Al and all.

images(1).jpeg.5e1a1be9213fa2e9967098083613819b.jpeg

Edited by Mikkel
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Nice solution to the problem, Al. You are in good company with the wiper pick-ups acting directly onto the railhead - the great Baron von Harrap also uses them on his P87 layouts!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
On 21/04/2023 at 17:48, Mikkel said:

Interesting and informative post and discussion. I am one of those who have been wondering what a GWR shunting (micro) layout in N would be like, but feel uncertain whether the quality of running would be satisfying. I am too involved in 4mm to go 2FS, so will leave that to masters like Ian. But a nice little N micro on this IKEA cutting board might be fun. So this is good info for further contemplation, thanks Al and all.

images(1).jpeg.5e1a1be9213fa2e9967098083613819b.jpeg

I thought that you were proposing using that to encourage the locos to work. 🤣

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

The 57xx isn't really one of the older Dapol models. I have a number of 57xx, and IMHO they all run pretty well, although they are rather noisy. That said, I'm running them on DC. I find that DCC in N gauge can often be problematical, especially where sound is involved.

 

Having said that, the Farish 64xx is a better runner. But the old Dapol small Prairie is a worse runner, and I hope it will be following the Ivatt tank for a revamp.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Regarding the wiper pickups acting directly on the railhead - I too resorted to this on an OO Wrenn Class 08 diesel shunter, which I originally bought in 1975 but never did anything meaningful with until 1991. I discovered that its running wasn't brilliant and that this was probably due to the wheels on the outer axles not quite sitting squarely on the track (the centre wheelset, although flanged unlike the Hornby Dublo original, was unsuitable for power collection). So I replaced the plastic keeper plate with a piece of copper-clad circuit board electrically 'split' down the middle and soldered up 4 pickup 'shoes' to contact the railhead between the wheels, so two on each side. To get enough springing into the phosphor bronze strip (giving a lighter touch than the nickel-silver strip I also had to hand) I soldered these pickup arms to the cooper-clad on the side opposite the rail they were to act upon (and at an angle to clear each other), with the pickup 'shoes' being small curved squares of brass offcuts from Kings Cross etched nameplates (which had to be cut and filed to shape - I don't miss that task! - never throw anything away, you never know what's going to come in handy years down the line 😉!)

I still have the loco and I believe it still works but, although a picture would help, I'm not able to provide one right now (I'm between phones!) However I hope this confirms that in some situations this method of power collection is a viable solution.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...